Maybe I'm a bit confused here. The finer pixel pitch of the 7D (about 4.3 um vs. 6.4 um for the 5D2) should only provide more detail if the same lens is used in the same position (i.e. the 7D's framing is 1.6x tighter). If the 5D2 is moved closer to the subject so that the framing is the same then any pixel pitch advantage should be go away.

What I think The1 is saying is that the 5D2 has a stronger anti-aliasing filter and thus provides more blurring at the pixel level. This is possibly true, but I am surprised that this would be enough to negate the advantages of requiring 33% lower lens MTF to get the same level of detail (and to a lesser extent the advantage of 21 vs. 18 MP). And again, this runs counter to my own experience.

If we're talking about using the same lens from the same shooting position then I have no arguement - the 7D is a clear winner in detail. If, however, we're talking about equivalently framed scenes I reiterate my doubts: under these circumstances I've seen the 5D2 yield more image detail than the 7D.

I will play with these situations when i have some more free time, and if i can pull decent results i will post my findings one way or the other.

however, I did the tests as you pointed out from the same shooting position and cropped the images to the same size and still saw a difference. I will attempt with 2 shooting positions, but technically this won't matter as a crop body is really seeing the exact same thing as the FF, it's just throwing 40% of the image away giving the appearance of greater zoom.

On a different note: what do you guys use for RAW conversion software? I'm pretty happy with DPP (having played with Lightroom and a couple of others).

this is something i have been experimenting with a lot lately as my picture skills are starting to get a lot closer to where i would like them to be. So i'm starting to turn more attention to the post processing end. (still working on my shooting abilities, but my primary focus is now probably 70% on the photo and 30% PP whereas before it was more like 95% photo and 5% post)

I've been playing with DxO and like it a lot, especially the lens correction aspect.

however, i've been playing with lightroom a bit more recently testing it's functions out, i find the lens correction a litte less capable, but a lot of the other "fill" "recovery" and such functions are a little more powerfull, so it's a trade off.

I gave up on the canon software early on, but may give it another shot at some point now that i understand a bit more of what's going on.

as for Photoshop. I need to spend a lot more time here to get to know it, I've only been using it in extreme circumstances if i want to remove an object or something that is too big for a dust removal type tool in other programs.

I attempted to use GIMP, but i found it used up a lot of system resources and didn't provide enough power to get the results i wanted, so i removed it. however it is a free program, so that is a big check mark in it's pros column. (everything else i have is pirated) I also tryed another program a buddy of mine recommended it was about 90$ but had a free trial, and i just never got used to it, so i let the trial expire and removed the program. He has had some good results from it, but as he is looking for something better, i think he still sees room for improvement.

so for now, i'm pretty comfortable with DxO and am getting more used to the functionality of lightroom, and liking it more and more every day.

I find the DxO auto feature is pretty impressive, and once i've let it do it's thing, i make minor adjustments to make things appear more how i would like then the computer thinks.

should i just start a thread? shoot was for the model.
going through and marking all of the out of focus ones, which is when i take the not-perfect-but-workable shots and put some crazy light/color settings on it just for fun.

Maybe I'm a bit confused here. The finer pixel pitch of the 7D (about 4.3 um vs. 6.4 um for the 5D2) should only provide more detail if the same lens is used in the same position (i.e. the 7D's framing is 1.6x tighter). If the 5D2 is moved closer to the subject so that the framing is the same then any pixel pitch advantage should go away.

What I think The1 is saying is that the 5D2 has a stronger anti-aliasing filter and thus provides more blurring at the pixel level. This is possibly true, but I am surprised that this would be enough to negate the advantages of requiring 33% lower lens MTF to get the same level of detail (and to a lesser extent the advantage of 21 vs. 18 MP). And again, this runs counter to my own experience.

If we're talking about using the same lens from the same shooting position then I have no arguement - the 7D is a clear winner in detail. If, however, we're talking about equivalently framed scenes I reiterate my doubts: under these circumstances I've seen the 5D2 yield more image detail than the 7D.

On a different note: what do you guys use for RAW conversion software? I'm pretty happy with DPP (having played with Lightroom and a couple of others).

I'm speaking of shooting with the 7D AND cropping the resulting image to get a tight shot of something like a bird. Getting closer with a 5D2 is NOT an option, so if you used the 5D you'd have to crop to get down to equivalent to the uncropped 7D image and then crop again. The 7D's finer pixel-pitch will end up yielding more detail. IQ is also impacted by noise, so there'll be a compromise. I find that up to ISO 800 the 7D has good latitude and is foregiving of a less than perfect exposure, but when you get above that, you risk mosaicing affect and plain ole noise in the dark areas that don't start showing up with the 5D2 until a stop or two later.

When shooting most birds and most wildlife, you can't equivalently frame the 7D and the 5D2 with most of the lenses that we can afford, or have the strength to carry. If I'm not cropping and don't have to worry about AF speed, the 5D2 always comes out of the bag first, but the 7D is superior for most birds and wildlife shooting because of the cropping involved.

I use DxO's Optics Pro for RAW conversion and global correction. I seldom pull out PS because I try for natural presentation. In most nature photo contests you cannot Clone or remove parts of the image, other than simple cropping. (Some don't even allow cropping). Anyway, I like DxO automatic lens corrections and it's intuitive for me to work with.

Since we're discussing PP and natural vs PP'd color, do you folks calibrate your monitors? I know that can make a huge difference in how your final image appears. I have dual monitors at work and home. In both cases the monitors are slightly different models. Same make and size, but at work, for instance, I have one Dell Ultrasharp and one Dell generic. I can PP an image on one monitor until it looks good to me and then it will look a little desaturated on the other monitor. And I always find that images I've PP'd on my laptop at home and load to the web look overblown when I look at them from work.

Since we're discussing PP and natural vs PP'd color, do you folks calibrate your monitors? I know that can make a huge difference in how your final image appears. I have dual monitors at work and home. In both cases the monitors are slightly different models. Same make and size, but at work, for instance, I have one Dell Ultrasharp and one Dell generic. I can PP an image on one monitor until it looks good to me and then it will look a little desaturated on the other monitor. And I always find that images I've PP'd on my laptop at home and load to the web look overblown when I look at them from work.

I think that monitor calibration is very important. Most monitors these days aren't too horrible, but if you're is off it'll screw up everything that you do.

I've got a 24.1" NEC monitor that I calibrate monthly. I also try to keep the room relatively dark. My laptop also does a pretty good job, but I'm just lucky there. The laptop is way short of my NEC when it comes to brightness and contrast, but the color accuracy is amazingly good.

My office monitor is a Dell 24" monitor which is close to my NEC for color, but gets beaten pretty bad for brightness and contrast potential.
Dave